|
I'm glad cspam has settled on the DSA as the guys to join, it helps to not have too many splits Also the fact that Bernie kept saying Democratic Socialism helps
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2017 13:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 20:52 |
|
|
*Bernie grins palpatinely* Yes, good, good. Let the class struggle flow through you. It gives you Strength!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2017 13:53
|
|
|
Don't lie jarofpiss, we all know that this 'outside' or 'real world' is nothing but an urban legend
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2017 02:49
|
|
|
Cuckintelpro
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2017 10:16
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:So infowars is harassing my local campus socialists and DSA chapter. Shits hosed up.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2017 07:08
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:I'm getting threatening facebook messages from trumper's now lmao
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2017 12:22
|
|
|
basically the entire comments section of this is full of trumpsters rejecting this guy, so i'm gonna guess the dominant reaction of the insane right is gonna be  they're defending themselves which I guess means that every dsa chapter needs to start doing this
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Nerds are victimized because they're lovely people. Being a "nerd" only started being cool, because nerds have a ludicrously high disposable income and they develop identities around their consumption.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 06:10
|
|
|
What got me more was the excusing of the victimizers, because in reality, that group is a very small minority, and the reason they target nerds, is because they know no one will defend them. They enjoy the process of abusing others, and they target the vulnerable because they know they can get away with it. By saying that nerds deserve victimization, you're elevating abusive assholes to warriors of justice or whatever, and that's just not the case.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 07:03
|
|
|
By saying "there are reasons", then giving a whole bunch of justifications, toy are in fact talking about deserts. Also, nerds don't lean right or libertarian, that's just the Internet talking. Like what type essentially proposing is the 'just world hypothesis', that people who are victimized deserve it, because the world is just. The reality is that victimization doesn't occur because it should , but because it can, and that applies to every kind of victimization. Like, okay, think this over. Do you think the people doing the victimization lean right, or left, politically?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 07:46
|
|
|
Pk, I think I've derailed enough, but one thing I want you to notice was your opening sentence: they are victimized because they are terrible people. That is literally a justification, even if you refuse to recognize it as such. Think that one over. deadgoon posted:is it still ethnic cleansing if stop at ghettos rather than full-on death camps rudatron has issued a correction as of 08:29 on Feb 10, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 08:26
|
|
|
I hope you don't mind me asking: what area your biggest bottlenecks right now?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2017 14:13
|
|
|
Rhetoric should be adopted to your target audience, and normies are the bread and butter of any mass political movement Comrade -> Friend, Brother, Brosef Bourgeoisie -> Owner class etc.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2017 03:53
|
|
|
Honestly, if you can't explain yourself clearly and persuasively enough for a 12 year old to follow you, you don't really understand what you're talking about, and that goes for about any subject (quantum physics, the history of the spring and autumn period of chinese history, socialism, etc)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2017 03:55
|
|
|
The problem with that, is US culture has an ingrained idea of 'just deserts', that's based on around how much money you earn - you're poor because you're stupid/irresponsible/lazy/unvirtuous. That assumption expresses itself to varying degrees of explicitness (not everyone who assumes that idea is actually aware they're assuming it, they've just 'absorbed' it), but it's sort of everywhere. So if you come out and just start saying 'would it be nice if X', the response you'll get is 'that's utopian' or whatever you have to blow that myth out of the water, first, to get people to start questioning if what they already thought was wrong so, pointing out that people are being paid less despite working more or that flint was not caused by elected officials, but by an unelected manager created by a 'fiscal emergency' (which ended up costing the city money, btw), that was itself result of decades of austerity-like politics on detroit as a whole (exacerbated by white-flight and the michigan suburbs not sharing revenue). etc etc
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2017 04:31
|
|
|
Desktop publishing is actually really complicated, if you want to make something not-trash. You really, really want to find someone familiar with Adobe inDesign, or an equivalent. If you're short on time + money, use word. There is one other alternative, that costs nothing, but will cost an investment in time, called LaTeX. It's essentially a programming language for documents that academics wrote. The downside is that it's fairly byzantine, and almost everything you make will basically look the same. But if you want it 'legit' professional, you're going to have to find a professional and pay them.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2017 13:50
|
|
|
They big thing with libertarianism is a blindness to corporate and financial power, which is often just as, if not more coercive, than state power. Absent the special-pleading assumption that business leaders are more virtuous/smarter than civil leaders, which anyone who has worked a day in their life will quickly discover is not the case, the theory falls apart completely. If you can get them to see that companies as essentially private fiefdoms, with all the tyranny implied, you can start getting them to think about how power is structured, why democracy works as a general power structure, and all the power structures that they live under in their day to day lives. From there, it's a hop, skip and a jump to socialism. rudatron has issued a correction as of 05:39 on Mar 20, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 05:37
|
|
|
I hope you don't mind me asking u guys: what are some of the biggest organizational roadblocks u dsa peeps have encountered, so far? What are the problems u have, and what tools do u think u need?
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2017 07:36
|
|
|
because the movie represents rich people's fear of class war, but you can't just voice the fear of 'i'll lose my absurd wealth that i never really earned qq' because that wouldn't sell well, so you need another contrivance
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2017 02:22
|
|
|
Justice League more like Justice Lanyards
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2017 06:11
|
|
|
If we project this out to 2025, the number of socialists in America will be greater than the total global population
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2017 06:00
|
|
|
Realistic police reform is going to involve purging shitheads, because no amount of sensitivity training is going to fix stuff like embedded racism. There has to be real consequences to poo poo like planting evidence and being too trigger happy, and right now there is not. But calling that 'abolishing the police' is not strategic, and in fact counter productive, because you're making the solution to the problem sound more extreme than it really needs to be, or actually is. The abolition of policing as, like, an institution, represents the end of civil society, and everyone kind of gets that.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2017 09:26
|
|
|
Your goal as a political movement is always, always to reach ordinary people and their concerns - the kind that do not pay attention to politics. You need to use simple, easily understood language that matches the 'common sense' meaning, as much as possible. So if you say, 'abolish the police', normal people will take that at face value. They don't have the time to read your political pamphlets, about how nuanced your stance is: you've already lost them by that point. So instead, say stuff like: "Police accountability" "Justice for victims of crooked cops" "'Protect and Serve' not 'License to Kill'" "End Police Brutality" "Cop Demilitarization" Etc etc
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2017 09:42
|
|
|
In the digital era, everything published online is public-facing. Also sloganeering isn't the same as dog-whistling. It's a lost art, honestly. But it's absolutely critical. You want simple, easy to understand and unpack phrases, that carry the exact implications you want them to - no extra baggage, no introduced confusion. The best example here is "Peace, Land, Bread" - that's what you should be trying to emulate. "Abolish the Police" has an implication of irrelevant and somewhat abstract sociological arguments, over the viability of a society absent a monopoly of violence - that's not what you want. If that's not what you actually mean, then that's not what you should say. If that is what you mean, then you are absolutely not getting it to happen anytime soon, and at any rate, you shouldn't let this 'pet issue' derail actually-existing attempts at police reform. If your focus is on the perversion that is the criminal justice system in America, then your slogans must reflect that.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2017 12:55
|
|
|
Like I said: it's the art of the slogan. I don't think there's this kind of false dichotomy between ignoring the serious problems, and presenting immediately actionable change. Nor do I think getting the right slogan is equivalent to centrist acquiescence. Someone pointed to community policing - okay, but that's not a substitute for a paid & professional police force, and at a minimum still recognizes the necessity of a kind of police. And again - you don't get the chance to point that out, to everyone who hears you say 'abolish the police'. You need to make your policies sound as easy, and as obvious, as possible. So for example, if you're trying to clean house, you say 'fire and hire', because it's short, simple and carries exactly the implied meaning you want it to. Now maybe you want something more, then okay, you need to think carefully about what your phrasing should be. But like it or not, 'abolish the police' carries a strong implication of the end of civil society, and total social anarchy - you're not getting anyone but a tiny % of the public to buy into that.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2017 00:45
|
|
|
If your goal is to fire the current police, and then make a new one, that's not being communicated by 'abolish the police'. The default reading is of policing as a state function/activity. Suggestions so far have amounted to simply changing who does the policing, and how that's structured. That's an important goal, but that's not what's being communicated. You should always be presenting your proposals as 'common sense' and 'obvious'. That's not the same as having no radical policies. In fact, if your policies are radical, it's even more important that they sound simple and straightforward. Short, pithy & self contained is what you want. "Close Prison Factories", "Community Cops, not Commuter Cops", "Decriminalize Protesting", "Consequences for Crooked Cops", etc etc. You have to keep this in mind: most people aren't in the same headspace as you guys - people who pay attention to politics are already in the margins, nevermind those who are tuned into left rhetoric. Your interpretation of 'abolish the police', isn't going to be the same as everyone else's.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2017 09:59
|
|
|
Yeah, that's the good poo poo
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2017 04:34
|
|
|
From that linked tweet thread: https://twitter.com/msawatta/status/894391649576644609
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2017 04:44
|
|
|
Wow, so the linkedin was actually legit then. Honestly wouldn't have thought someone would have been that stupid. Too dumb to be an infiltrator, but not smart enough for a leadership position.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2017 05:13
|
|
|
All talking will be voip, minutes will be meaningless.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2017 03:25
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:The Soviet Union is pretty instructive for lessons on what not to do when you're building the socialist society of the future. It's a great narrative for capitalists in the West, because it played very well into how investors tried to sell privatization to the public, as a dream of 'efficiency', free from 'red tape' - that actually turned out to be nothing more than a self-serving rationalization, to get away with exploiting people more, with less oversight, while paying less in taxes.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2017 12:42
|
|
|
You're echoing nothing but your own empty skull. Police exist to maintain order, something literally every civil society needs, socialist or otherwise. Abolishing the police is utopianism, marxism is scientific socialism.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2017 01:03
|
|
|
I Am A Robot posted:hey guys I just graduated from the police academy ama
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2017 11:26
|
|
|
Karl Barks posted:https://twitter.com/Columbus_DSA/status/902355553393025024
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2017 14:44
|
|
|
Do you guys think bylaws and such are just totally irrelevant, to be ignored when it's convenient? It's not the role of the NPC to creatively interpret resolutions and bylaws, until they reach the outcome that the people yelling at them want them to reach: it's their job to follow a procedure, to the best of their ability. That's it. They've done that. That's the most you can expect. Don't like it? Welcome to the real world, the place where you don't get everything you want, even when everything is done right.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2017 14:53
|
|
|
Did you actuality read the statement? They explicitly acknowledged the complexity of the case, and basically affirmed everything you guys wanted. But in the end, concluded that kicking him would set a bad precedent, because nothing he did was illegal for a co-chair to do, and that's technically what he was when he was running for election. It's not a good faith argument to say 'people yelled about him on twitter' is sufficient grounds for malfeasence. Like take the loving long view here:
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2017 23:02
|
|
|
Dreddout posted:it's almost like the idea of representative democracy is dumb in an age with instant communication... There's no guarantee that the set of people who are Extremely Online are actually representative of the population as a whole, or indeed are good leadership material - and a lot of reasons to suspect that they won't be either of those things. You need a filter.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2017 04:12
|
|
|
The people most desperate and ambitious for gaining power, over decision making and so on, are the people you least want to have that influence, because they're the people most likely to use that power in a self serving way. And if you distribute that power on the basis of willingness for constant engagement (which is what running everything off internet polls does), you set up an incentive structure that most favors that kind of person, as a class of people, and conversely, sets up a barrier for entry for everyone else. This was one of the many things that Occupy got wrong. In principle, anyone could join anything, it was all open and blah blah blah. In practice, it was all run by the small minority, most willing and able to hold everyone else hostage, until they got what they wanted. As a result, everyone else just left.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2017 04:22
|
|
|
Wrangling with systems is a practical reality for all any group of people larger than a book club. That poo poo is never going away. You're playing a probability game. The important thing is that it works the majority of the time, and that the damage is contained when it inevitably fails. If you can't do that, it's only a matter of time before the org self-destructs. Which is why running everything off twitter is bad, because there's no way to contain damage. That's why you need the 'centralism' in 'democratic centralism'.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2017 10:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 20:52 |
|
|
That very article you are having a meltdown over goes to great lengths to suggest minorities are not a hivemind, and in fact uses that idea as the basis of its argument. Your counter argument seems to be accusing them if being fake, on account of not agreeing with you, which ironically has that exact assumption of hivemind as its basis.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2017 00:14
|
|